3 ms·

You are doing the same thing the author of the article is doing, trying to pretend there is one issue, combine them all into one, and say, 'look how bad (aborti

You are doing the same thing the author of the article is doing, trying to pretend there is one issue, combine them all into one, and say, 'look how bad (abortion, ahem, I mean) euthanasia is'. If people are being coerced into dying, that is already illegal under coercion laws. If people are opting into dying rather than live under a dystopian torture chamber, perhaps consider letting them out first? Having the choice of death isn't a real issue here, despite what the article wants you to think.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
If you read anything about abortion in my comment I'd really recommend trying to take a few steps back from the red & blue dichotomies because that's properly unhinged. Yes, euthanasia is a two-fold problem and a strong social net would alleviate some of these issues. But that's insufficient for two reasons. First because some of these issues are cultural, e.g the value (or lack thereof) we put on the lives of the elderly and the disabled in the west, which is not solely driven by economic considerations. Second because euthanasia laws are being implemented right now and the social nets are not there, we are not discussing the theory of euthanasia we are talking about what's happening today and in the following decades for other western nations that will put it into effect. This is why we need to discuss the legal framework and its implementation. Euthanizing the poor is not acceptable, I don't think it needs to be said, and the solution is not to deny the problem and say "this is fine because euthanasia is important".
- gorjusborg 4y ago
  The abortion aside was not directed at you, per se, more drawing the obvious parallel between the tactics (at least in the U.S.) used in that argument and this. Conflating all the perceived complications and ills caused by a freedom, and drawing the 'logical conclusion' that the freedom should be removed is something done in that argument as well. The recent back-sliding of abortion rights in the U.S. are a fresh reminder of how these tactics can preclude/drive political action, so it's worth recognizing that the tactics are similar. > euthanasia is a two-fold problem Widening it to two issues is still an over-simplification, and you're still starting with the assumption that euthanasia is 'a/the problem'. How is anyone in Canada 'euthanizing the poor'? If people are being forced into choosing to die, that's wrong by itself and systems around the process should be adjusted to ensure that isn't happening, and people doing wrong should be punished. Placing blame on the freedom to choose to live is disingenuous.
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    I'm not widening it, I'm reframing it within the two-pronged perspective you've yourself provided: The "right to die" and economic inequality. And I'm showing you it doesn't fit within that perspective if only because of cultural considerations. I don't believe any problem of this sort has a countable number of facets. As for it being a "problem", it's semantics and entirely unimportant, call it an issue if you prefer. I believe the article goes into details about how Canada is euthanizing the poor. You are talking about this from an extremely individualist perspective, individual people forcing other people to die is not the issue we're discussing, we are talking about systemic influences. Again, euthanasia laws are not about the "freedom to choose to die", it is about defining the boundary between a suicide we seek to prevent and one we seek to assist. Unless you believe all people who wish to die should be assisted.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

If you read anything about abortion in my comment I'd really recommend trying to take a few steps back from the red & blue dichotomies because that's properly unhinged. Yes, euthanasia is a two-fold problem and a strong social net would alleviate some of these issues. But that's insufficient for two reasons. First because some of these issues are cultural, e.g the value (or lack thereof) we put on the lives of the elderly and the disabled in the west, which is not solely driven by economic considerations. Second because euthanasia laws are being implemented right now and the social nets are not there, we are not discussing the theory of euthanasia we are talking about what's happening today and in the following decades for other western nations that will put it into effect. This is why we need to discuss the legal framework and its implementation. Euthanizing the poor is not acceptable, I don't think it needs to be said, and the solution is not to deny the problem and say "this is fine because euthanasia is important".

gorjusborg 4y ago
The abortion aside was not directed at you, per se, more drawing the obvious parallel between the tactics (at least in the U.S.) used in that argument and this. Conflating all the perceived complications and ills caused by a freedom, and drawing the 'logical conclusion' that the freedom should be removed is something done in that argument as well. The recent back-sliding of abortion rights in the U.S. are a fresh reminder of how these tactics can preclude/drive political action, so it's worth recognizing that the tactics are similar. > euthanasia is a two-fold problem Widening it to two issues is still an over-simplification, and you're still starting with the assumption that euthanasia is 'a/the problem'. How is anyone in Canada 'euthanizing the poor'? If people are being forced into choosing to die, that's wrong by itself and systems around the process should be adjusted to ensure that isn't happening, and people doing wrong should be punished. Placing blame on the freedom to choose to live is disingenuous.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  I'm not widening it, I'm reframing it within the two-pronged perspective you've yourself provided: The "right to die" and economic inequality. And I'm showing you it doesn't fit within that perspective if only because of cultural considerations. I don't believe any problem of this sort has a countable number of facets. As for it being a "problem", it's semantics and entirely unimportant, call it an issue if you prefer. I believe the article goes into details about how Canada is euthanizing the poor. You are talking about this from an extremely individualist perspective, individual people forcing other people to die is not the issue we're discussing, we are talking about systemic influences. Again, euthanasia laws are not about the "freedom to choose to die", it is about defining the boundary between a suicide we seek to prevent and one we seek to assist. Unless you believe all people who wish to die should be assisted.